Good article on modern Afghanistan history

[Craig234]

Funny how we can be at war in Afghanistan for several years, and yet so little information on the situation and history is known by the public.

Link

There's an article written by left-wing writer Michal Parenti which does a lot better job than anything I've seen in the MSM at telling the modern history.

IMO, definitely worth a read, and a lesson learned. BTW, it's bad about *Carter*.

 

[Lemon law]

Very interesting read and a good find Craig234, now is the time to cue in palehorse to say its not true.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Very interesting read and a good find Craig234, no is the time to cue in palehorse to say its not true.

And who would you be to say he's wrong?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Very interesting read and a good find Craig234, now is the time to cue in palehorse to say its not true.

And who would you be to say he's wrong?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been saying many of the same things Parenti said in this link and palehorse always pops up in denial. Hope that explains it to you.

But most of these arguments have resulted from threads about what our Afghan occupation strategy should be, and now we shall see if Obama learns anything from past history. However past history is immutable and cannot be changed, but I for one,
have to hope that Obama will greatly cut down the number and types of cross border
trespassing into Pakistani sovereignty. Or it has the potential to create a hell of a mess.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Very interesting read and a good find Craig234, now is the time to cue in palehorse to say its not true.

And who would you be to say he's wrong?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been saying many of the same things Parenti said in this link and palehorse always pops up in denial. Hope that explains it to you.

But most of these arguments have resulted from threads about what our Afghan occupation strategy should be, and now we shall see if Obama learns anything from past history. However past history is immutable and cannot be changed, but I for one,
have to hope that Obama will greatly cut down the number and types of cross border
trespassing into Pakistani sovereignty. Or it has the potential to create a hell of a mess.

If he is a student of history lessons that wa have taught others, he will figure out a way to keep this ON THE CHEAP.

The oil connection fails. Location, location, location.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
....
However past history is immutable and cannot be changed, but I for one,
have to hope that Obama will greatly cut down the number and types of cross border
trespassing into Pakistani sovereignty. Or it has the potential to create a hell of a mess.

Isn't it ironic that you talk about Pakistani "sovereignty" and cross-border trespassing when it's been proven that Pakistanis have taken a boat from Karachi and attacked Indian civilian targets?

It's finally dawned on the West that the solution to the Afghan problem starts with taking on the Pakistani weasels who're running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. I think Pakistan will finally be sorted out by Obama, now that the Iraqi diversion is winding down. This is what should have been done immediately after 9/11 as he himself has said, but it's better late than never.

 

[Lemon law]

Ozoned and tvarad seem to have two Afghan strategies sure to lose.

Ozoned seems to think that there is a way to run a military occupation on the cheap, and most of our intractable problems in both Iraq and Afghanistan are directly traceable to going too small and too cheap.

And while tvarad is correct in pointing out that some elements inside of Pakistan are less than reliable allies, but is not thinking very far ahead. As it is, the Pakistani central government has little control
over the tribal regions of Pakistan and have lost more troops than Nato in terms of trying to assert minimal control. But if the USA chooses to, it can totally destabilize the tribal areas also, but then tvarad had better be talking something on the order of 600,000 Nato troops as the cost of widening that war. As it is, 72,000 current Nato troops is at least on the order of 300,000 troops short of enough to control a country the size of Afghanistan. And as it is, the Taliban and Al-Quida are getting stronger each year for seven straight years in a row. Because we fail to address the issues of corruption, opium production, and economic development while treating the Afghan people with callous disregard.

 

[RichardE]

There is a military solution to everything Lemon Law. You can have talks with people who still want to kill you for no reason.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Nice article, and it isn't surprising at all given how the US has sought to brutally undermine every home-grown democratic movement in that part of the world.

It's an easy recipe for success: Oust and execute the intellectual, install and fund the extremists, and call it a victory for democracy so that all the simpletons back home and wave their flags and cheer. Anybody who points out the obvious contradictions are labeled "apologists" or "anti-american". These trends obviously continue today, even on this board where at least the "patriots" are intelligent enough to form complete sentences. It's appalling.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: RichardE
There is a military solution to everything Lemon Law. You can have talks with people who still want to kill you for no reason.

You're being sarcastic, right? No reason? Do you buy this "they hate our freedom and women folk" crap? If so then I have some great "like new" products to sell you - to buy is patriotic!!!

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: RichardE
There is a military solution to everything Lemon Law. You can have talks with people who still want to kill you for no reason.

You're being sarcastic, right? No reason? Do you buy this "they hate our freedom and women folk" crap? If so then I have some great "like new" products to sell you - to buy is patriotic!!!

No, I don't buy the "hate our freedom" crap. What is there reason? Overblown minor issues that rich Arabs have used to incite hatred in the poor of these countries. We can't chane there situation overnight, we can;t ship in schools, hospitals, educated people ect ect overnight, or even within 5 years. We can't "make them a successful economy" due to the fact they really don't have anything to make an economy out of, especially in a world recession. They think as short term as we do. So we go to the table say we will do X, Y, Z, and when X, Y, Z don't happen timely, they get pissed and call us liars. That's the problem with diplomacy with people that are so inferior to you economically.

You ever wonder why we were able to stop WW2 and keep the cold war at a pretty even ground but we are having trouble diplomatically ending a fight with a bunch of rag tags in old gear? We were on the same ground economically with Germany, Russia, Japan, ect for the most part. There was no jealousy really, just understanding that destruction lay ahead for people that still had something to live for. These people have nothing, nothing economically, no future besides a simple one, no hope of an "American standard of living" even if we promise it, yet are bombarded about how good we live.

They don't hate our freedom and women, they hate what we have and they don't.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta love RichardE's signature line of " The difference between victim and victor, rebel and refugee, assassin and activist is often only a matter of perspective."

While the signature line has some elements of truth, RichardE seems to lack the ability to have any perspective but is own. And when the #1 terrorist in the world is Ossama Bin Laden, wealthy enough to buy anything he wants, its bulltookie that they hate us for what we we have and they don't.

Maybe some day RichardE may acquire an ability to look at problems from someone else's perspective, but that day has quite apparently not arrived yet. And that day is not even close yet.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Gotta love RichardE's signature line of " The difference between victim and victor, rebel and refugee, assassin and activist is often only a matter of perspective."

While the signature line has some elements of truth, RichardE seems to lack the ability to have any perspective but is own. And when the #1 terrorist in the world is Ossama Bin Laden, wealthy enough to buy anything he wants, its bulltookie that they hate us for what we we have and they don't.

Maybe some day RichardE may acquire an ability to look at problems from someone else's perspective, but that day has quite apparently not arrived yet. And that day is not even close yet.

You seem to think all terrorist are the same Lemon which is a fundamental flaw that the US administration has made for 25 years. The difference is that Bin Laden has the money to live a comfortable lifestyle as he would want, but he has no *power*. Attacking the US gives him power, leading an organization that can make the US rewrite its own laws for its citizens is a source of power. If you want to learn more about power and its effects I would recommend the book Anatomy of power.

The other terrorist, the average man is not fighting for power, but fighting for an ideologie and ideal and because they have no other thing of substance in there life besides religion with poverty.

I talk about the average person and why they fight, and you talk about a leader and why he fights, yet, he doesn't fight, he leads. He pays for weapons, training, ect but he will never fight, because fighting in itself is not power, sending men to die is.

Bin Laden is nothing more than a modern day Pope Urban II, or Pope Gregory VIII, Man of power who send man to die for there ideologies but not fight themselves. Bin Laden might hate us for what we represent as Stalin hating America for capitalism, but the people he leads do not hate us for what we are, they fight because it is all they have, and the only way to gain something for themselves. Why do you think most of the Wests Muslims are moderates? Because they don't need to fight.

You need to learn how power works, and why power is the difference between leaders and followers and why it can transcend simple wealth.